ABID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ABID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1601
Parties
Applicant: Abid; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL718/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or violation of rights under HKBOR Articles 2 or 3 if returned to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether state or police protection would be unavailable or ineffective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed